Thanks Larry! - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Thanks Larry! (/thread-22801.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Thanks Larry! (/thread-22801.html)
Thanks Larry! - cardcrimson - 01-01-2022
Pathetic 0-5 with a no show in bowl games. I know, I know, on your way out, you blamed the conference's failings on the member schools, so the current state of disarray is not your fault. It's now the Power 4 and Group of 6 thanks to your leadership. . . .
Anyway, how's the Pac-12 Network working out? Still can't get it at home, or at the club at which we both belong. Nice!
Impressive legacy, Lars!
Mudhead - Mudhead - 01-02-2022
(01-01-2022, 07:56 PM)cardcrimson Wrote: Pathetic 0-5 with a no show in bowl games. I know, I know, on your way out, you blamed the conference's failings on the member schools, so the current state of disarray is not your fault. It's now the Power 4 and Group of 6 thanks to your leadership. . . .
Anyway, how's the Pac-12 Network working out? Still can't get it at home, or at the club at which we both belong. Nice!
Impressive legacy, Lars!
Very short sighted. Everyone knows the problem would have been avoided if we had just paid “Lars” a little more and ponied up for some nicer offices.
RE: Thanks Larry! - Spiny_Norman - 01-03-2022
Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges
RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 01-03-2022
A lot of wishful thinking on the Commish's part, and a lot of the problems like talent pool are out of his hands, but this struck me:
"we’re ready to go from nine conference games to eight immediately."
RE: Thanks Larry! - SamuelMcF - 01-03-2022
Feels to me like the commish gets it overall.
A big one for me was talking specifically about keeping 4* and 5* linemen in the conference footprint and expanding recruiting territories. Does anyone here think Larry Scott would know what that means, let alone specifically address it as a (correct, IMO) reason for conference underperformance? Consider in the 2022 cycle, there are a grand total of 12 4-5* OL and DL (not OLBs/edge rushers, specifically the big boys) in the entire conference footprint. If 247's crystal balls hold, NINE of them will not end up in the PAC. So not only is there a clear dearth of highly-ranked big guys, the large majority of them are still leaving the West.
Going from 9 to 8 conference games immediately would be a great start. Even if it's replaced with a rotation against another P5 conference. Need more games in recruiting territory. We will also have a consistent recurring series with BYU, which makes sense for recruiting in Utah which we do frequently. Scheduling more P5 games beyond those is a massive mistake on OUR part, not the conference's.
lex24 - lex24 - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 12:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges
Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.
RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 01-03-2022
No, you can't solve a problem unless you are aware one exists. But being aware of it doesn't matter much unless you can solve it. All this is to say I don't know if it matters that the commish knows the conference can't beat teams OOC because it struggles recruiting "big guys in the trenches," unless he has some magic elixir to fix it. I don't see one based on what I gather.
Interesting how Commish K says the schools need to get control of when games are played. Kind of tracks to my suggestion fans should be allowed to pick the times Pac-12 football games are played.
I'm gonna make a prediction and say CBS will end up with the Pac-12. It's losing the SEC to Mickey Mouse and it has the CBS Sports Network. That means a lot of empty Saturdays on the schedule. Allow CBS to cary Pac-12 Network content and you can cut the cost for CBS to fill its schedule and expand Pac-12 Network access. To me, the Pac-12 Network not having a network affiliation now, while the Big Ten Network is 50% owned by Fox Sports, will provide the leverage/synergy to get it done.
The Pac-12 will take less money than the Big Ten demands, in a "let's take less money to increase our distribution" approach like Formula One took with ESPN. Of course, CBS will want to pay the schools enough so they can invest in the arms that lead to fielding competitive, entertaining teams that get ratings.
lex24 - lex24 - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 02:06 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote: No, you can't solve a problem unless you are aware one exists. But being aware of it doesn't matter much unless you can solve it. All this is to say I don't know if it matters that the commish knows the conference can't beat teams OOC because it struggles recruiting "big guys in the trenches," unless he has some magic elixir to fix it. I don't see one based on what I gather.
Interesting how Commish K says the schools need to get control of when games are played. Kind of tracks to my suggestion fans should be allowed to pick the times Pac-12 football games are played.
I'm gonna make a prediction and say CBS will end up with the Pac-12. It's losing the SEC to Mickey Mouse and it has the CBS Sports Network. That means a lot of empty Saturdays on the schedule. Allow CBS to cary Pac-12 Network content and you can cut the cost for CBS to fill its schedule and expand Pac-12 Network access. To me, the Pac-12 Network not having a network affiliation now, while the Big Ten Network is 50% owned by Fox Sports, will provide the leverage/synergy to get it done.
The Pac-12 will take less money than the Big Ten demands, in a "let's take less money to increase our distribution" approach like Formula One took with ESPN. Of course, CBS will want to pay the schools enough so they can invest in the arms that lead to fielding competitive, entertaining teams that get ratings.
Well, let’s start with improving the reputation of the brand. I think it was Stewart Mandel that mentioned the enormous difference in talent in the trenches - particularly on the defensive side. And it is, I think, an unassailable fact that the South is producing more quality players out of HS than others regions. By a long shot.
So, recruiting nationally and getting some of those kids to come West is important. How you do that is another question. It doesn’t help that the TV times (and the PAC-12Network) stink. Getting key games slotted so they are shown before half the country is sleeping would be nice.
And, no - the schools (and/or conference) getting control of game times is not remotely the same as letting the fans somehow decide. Heck, id vote for SC to play at midnight….
Speaking of SC, too much of the article focused on the Toejams and it’s new savior. But when you get right down to it, the single most obvious key to the “return of PAC-12 to prominence” is to have a dominant SC again. Depressing. But, I think, true.
RE: lex24 - cardcrimson - 01-03-2022
(01-03-2022, 02:58 PM)lex24 Wrote: And it is, I think, an unassailable fact that the South is producing more quality players out of HS than others regions. By a long shot.How much, if any, is related to CTE? My roommate in grad school was a DB for UCLA, played in two Rose Bowls, yet wouldn't let his son play football. Hoops instead.
Think folks on the Left Coast might be a little more cautious about it, perhaps. Sort of like they have been with something else that has been plaguing the world. . . .
RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 01-04-2022
On ESPN radio yesterday there was some discussion about how even the meaningless bowl games got better ratings than NBA on Christmas.
This isn't a proof point that exhibition bowl games are in high demand. It's proof that ANY FBS level football is a product the market loves. If this is the case, and the Pac-12 wants to increase its exposure, it should start playing games on Wednesday evenings at like 5:30pm PT local kickoff time so the East Coast can watch in prime time.
There are 12 weeks of regular season, so make each team play at least two conference games on Wednesdays, one home, and one away. This would give the Pac-12 an exclusive TV window for Power 5 conference football every week for 3 months. Nothing the conference can do would be more beneficial than this.
Teams don't play Saturday before they play on Wednesday, and the added bonus is they get 10 days before next game after a Wednesday game. This should help player health and safety at the margins, which is always a good thing.
RE: lex24 - Canalejas - 01-04-2022
(01-03-2022, 01:55 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-03-2022, 12:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges
Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.
My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of. Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.
Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team.
And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan. Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.
RE: lex24 - SamuelMcF - 01-04-2022
(01-04-2022, 11:00 AM)Canalejas Wrote:(01-03-2022, 01:55 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-03-2022, 12:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges
Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.
My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of. Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.
Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team.
And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan. Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.
The SEC plays a 6-1-1 rotating model: 6 games against the rest of the division, 1 locked game against a "rival" team from the other division (Bama-Tennessee, Auburn-UGA, LSU-Florida...), and 1 rotating game against the other 6 teams in the other division. Bama has played Georgia in the regular season just TWICE in the last 13 years.
Given the above, I could easily see the PAC moving to a 5-2-1 rotating model: 5 games against the rest of the division; 2 locked games wherein the CA schools play each other, the OR schools play the AZ schools, and the WA schools play the mountain schools; and 1 rotating game against the other 4 cross-division schools. 4 years is better than 6 years and this would preserve the CA rivalries. The only downside would be not playing yearly in Utah or Colorado, both states we recruit frequently...but we do have a recurring series with BYU coming up, and I'd argue the benefits of an 8-game conference schedule outweigh that small cost.
RE: Thanks Larry! - Canalejas - 01-04-2022
With a 5-2-1 model we’re asking the PNW schools to play each LA school once every four years (as opposed to their current rate of twice every four years.)
I think it will be a hard sell.
It’d be better if we could do away with the two divisions and use the three natural geographic groupings (which some might call pods) for scheduling in a 3+5 model. And then just take the top two schools from the standings table if we still want to play a CCG.
RE: lex24 - Giants - 01-04-2022
(01-04-2022, 11:00 AM)Canalejas Wrote:(01-03-2022, 01:55 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-03-2022, 12:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges
Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.
My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of. Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.
Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team.
And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan. Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.
I think a non-divisional structure may be the choice of conference leadership. Eight games on a rotating basis, including one protected game (v. rival), and no guarantee of annual games between the NorCal and the SoCal schools.
RE: Thanks Larry! - chrisk - 01-04-2022
(01-04-2022, 08:59 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: On ESPN radio yesterday there was some discussion about how even the meaningless bowl games got better ratings than NBA on Christmas.
This isn't a proof point that exhibition bowl games are in high demand. It's proof that ANY FBS level football is a product the market loves. If this is the case, and the Pac-12 wants to increase its exposure, it should start playing games on Wednesday evenings at like 5:30pm PT local kickoff time so the East Coast can watch in prime time.
There are 12 weeks of regular season, so make each team play at least two conference games on Wednesdays, one home, and one away. This would give the Pac-12 an exclusive TV window for Power 5 conference football every week for 3 months. Nothing the conference can do would be more beneficial than this.
Teams don't play Saturday before they play on Wednesday, and the added bonus is they get 10 days before next game after a Wednesday game. This should help player health and safety at the margins, which is always a good thing.
That would require 2 bye weeks foe each team which would not be possible every year.
RE: Thanks Larry! - OutsiderFan - 01-04-2022
(01-04-2022, 11:58 AM)chrisk Wrote:(01-04-2022, 08:59 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: On ESPN radio yesterday there was some discussion about how even the meaningless bowl games got better ratings than NBA on Christmas.
This isn't a proof point that exhibition bowl games are in high demand. It's proof that ANY FBS level football is a product the market loves. If this is the case, and the Pac-12 wants to increase its exposure, it should start playing games on Wednesday evenings at like 5:30pm PT local kickoff time so the East Coast can watch in prime time.
There are 12 weeks of regular season, so make each team play at least two conference games on Wednesdays, one home, and one away. This would give the Pac-12 an exclusive TV window for Power 5 conference football every week for 3 months. Nothing the conference can do would be more beneficial than this.
Teams don't play Saturday before they play on Wednesday, and the added bonus is they get 10 days before next game after a Wednesday game. This should help player health and safety at the margins, which is always a good thing.
That would require 2 bye weeks foe each team which would not be possible every year.
I would have thought any response would be centered around the idea of playing football games on Wednesdays, not the very specific execution of how it would be done. But then, this is the Cardboard, where every nit is picked, and larger ideas get lost in the tonnage of minutiae that permeates the board.
Maybe it's my fault. I should have just said: What do y'all think about the idea of the Pac-12 having the entire football-craving TV audience to itself by playing games on Wednesdays at 5:30pm local for 3 months in the Fall?
RE: lex24 - Canalejas - 01-04-2022
(01-04-2022, 11:49 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-04-2022, 11:00 AM)Canalejas Wrote:(01-03-2022, 01:55 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-03-2022, 12:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges
Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.
My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of. Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.
Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team.
And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan. Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.
I think a non-divisional structure may be the choice of conference leadership. Eight games on a rotating basis, including one protected game (v. rival), and no guarantee of annual games between the NorCal and the SoCal schools.
I'd still hate that. The UCLA game is a sibling rivalry matter in my family.
RE: Thanks Larry! - SamuelMcF - 01-04-2022
(01-04-2022, 12:20 PM)OutsiderFan Wrote:(01-04-2022, 11:58 AM)chrisk Wrote:(01-04-2022, 08:59 AM)OutsiderFan Wrote: On ESPN radio yesterday there was some discussion about how even the meaningless bowl games got better ratings than NBA on Christmas.
This isn't a proof point that exhibition bowl games are in high demand. It's proof that ANY FBS level football is a product the market loves. If this is the case, and the Pac-12 wants to increase its exposure, it should start playing games on Wednesday evenings at like 5:30pm PT local kickoff time so the East Coast can watch in prime time.
There are 12 weeks of regular season, so make each team play at least two conference games on Wednesdays, one home, and one away. This would give the Pac-12 an exclusive TV window for Power 5 conference football every week for 3 months. Nothing the conference can do would be more beneficial than this.
Teams don't play Saturday before they play on Wednesday, and the added bonus is they get 10 days before next game after a Wednesday game. This should help player health and safety at the margins, which is always a good thing.
That would require 2 bye weeks foe each team which would not be possible every year.
I would have thought any response would be centered around the idea of playing football games on Wednesdays, not the very specific execution of how it would be done. But then, this is the Cardboard, where every nit is picked, and larger ideas get lost in the tonnage of minutiae that permeates the board.
Maybe it's my fault. I should have just said: What do y'all think about the idea of the Pac-12 having the entire football-craving TV audience to itself by playing games on Wednesdays at 5:30pm local for 3 months in the Fall?
He told you what he thinks. He thinks it's not possible.
Were it possible, here's what I think: The MAC already plays Tuesday and Wednesday night games in November and has been doing so for years ("Wednesday Night MACtion" is a popular meme), and given the national perception of our conference, I'd be willing to bet many east of the Mississippi would rather continue to watch that, should those games be on at the same time. However, given those games start in November, "Wednesday Night PACtion" in September and October would be fun, and the only football on national TV. There would be issues with game attendance, though, as there already is with Thursday and Friday games, and we know later start times than 5:30/6pm PST are detrimental to national eyeballs (and even at that point we're talking games that end at 11pm/midnight eastern already).
RE: lex24 - teejers1 - 01-04-2022
(01-04-2022, 11:49 AM)Giants Wrote:(01-04-2022, 11:00 AM)Canalejas Wrote:(01-03-2022, 01:55 PM)lex24 Wrote:(01-03-2022, 12:41 PM)Spiny_Norman Wrote: Interview with current P12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff. He takes a swipe or two at his predecessor. Talks about self-inflicted wounds related to the media rights deals. He says, "I have 30 months left on those contracts and I'm counting every hour. The Pac 12 fans have my commitment that we're going to fix that."
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2022-01-03/rose-bowl-george-kliavkoff-pac-12-conference-challenges
Love the idea of replacing game 9 with a PAC-12 vs Big 10 game.
My main concern here would be where that 9th game would come out of. Assuming we don't abandon the current divisional alignment, it's almost certainly going to mean the end of the yearly series against the LA schools for Stanford. Because with only 3 interdivisional games I'm not sure we'd be able to continue using two to lock in the LA pair annually, leaving only one game to rotate through the rest of the South division.
Much more likely would be an even rotation of the South teams, where we play one LA team, one AZ team, and one mountain team.
And, personally, I would hate that. Our yearly matchup against UCLA is my most attended game in my time as a fan. Both at the Farm and in Pasadena. I'd hate to give it up.
I think a non-divisional structure may be the choice of conference leadership. Eight games on a rotating basis, including one protected game (v. rival), and no guarantee of annual games between the NorCal and the SoCal schools.
That would be my vote. Look, playing SC and UCLA is good and traditional and all; but long-term, over time, it probably hurts Stanford's W/L record more than skipping one of them in favor of other conference teams would. I know that has been less true in somewhat recent years, but still. And despite my doom and gloom projections for Stanford football, if it survives, I want it to have best chance to thrive/succeed.
RE: Thanks Larry! - Canalejas - 01-04-2022
If we want to make things easier on ourselves and get a little more schedule flexibility I'd rather give up the ND game than either of the LA schools. But that's just me. Cal, UCLA, and USC are the first through third reasons for me to care about Stanford football.